Weatherburn and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Miss Weatherburn against decisions by Comcare to cease her compensation payments for a psychological condition. The central dispute was whether Miss Weatherburn’s major depressive disorder continued to be contributed to, to a significant degree, by her former employment. The Tribunal acknowledged that Miss Weatherburn suffers from a long-term depressive condition, which was aggravated by her employment in August 2012, a fact previously accepted by Comcare. The critical question for the Tribunal was to determine the extent to which her previous employment remained a significant contributing factor to her ongoing psychological condition as of February 2017, when Comcare's liability ceased.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Miss Weatherburn's psychological condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her previous employment, and whether Comcare had discharged the evidentiary burden required by the principles established in *Comcare v Power* [2015] FCA 1502. This involved assessing the relative contributions of her employment and other life stressors to her persistent depressive disorder, considering the evidence of medical experts and Miss Weatherburn herself. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the situation was analogous to *Prain v Comcare* [2017] FCAFC 143, where subsequent destabilising events had pushed the employment factor into the background.

The Tribunal reasoned that determining the causation of a psychological condition is inherently subjective and relies heavily on the professional experience and judgment of medical experts, while also giving significant weight to the affected individual's perspective. It was uncontentious that Miss Weatherburn suffers from a lifelong depressive condition that has fluctuated and been impacted by family stressors. While her employment had aggravated this condition, leading to a compensable injury, the evidence regarding the ongoing significant contribution of that employment was ambivalent. The Tribunal found itself unable to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, whether her former employment continued to be a significant contributing factor.

Applying the authority of *Comcare v Power*, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decisions made by Comcare on 20 April 2017 and 4 September 2017. In substitution, the Tribunal found that Miss Weatherburn remained entitled to compensation under sections 16 and 20 of the relevant Act for persistent depressive disorder. Comcare was ordered to pay Miss Weatherburn's costs.